{ "name": "組織文化・組織風土・規範・文化変革 研究メタデータ", "version": "0.1", "notice": "論文本文・尺度項目は含みません。各権利者の条件に従ってください。", "studies": [ { "id": "smircich-1983", "authors": "Smircich, L.", "year": 1983, "title": "Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis", "journal": "Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3), 339–358", "doi": "10.2307/2392246", "type": "conceptual review", "evidence_role": "基礎理論・測定", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "組織文化研究", "sample": "理論文献", "method": "文化を変数・根源メタファー等として整理", "finding": "文化を組織が持つもの／組織そのものと見る立場を区別", "limitations": [ "概念論", "単一の正解定義ではない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.2307/2392246", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "schein-1990", "authors": "Schein, E. H.", "year": 1990, "title": "Organizational Culture", "journal": "American Psychologist, 45(2), 109–119", "doi": "10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.109", "type": "conceptual review", "evidence_role": "基礎理論・測定", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "組織文化", "sample": "理論・事例", "method": "人工物、価値、基本的前提の層を整理", "finding": "見える人工物だけから深い前提を断定できないと示す", "limitations": [ "概念・事例中心", "後の版で概念発展" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.109", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "hofstede-1990", "authors": "Hofstede, G. et al.", "year": 1990, "title": "Measuring Organizational Cultures: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study across Twenty Cases", "journal": "Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2), 286–316", "doi": "10.2307/2393392", "type": "multimethod field study", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "20組織単位", "sample": "国際企業等の20ケース", "method": "質的・量的に組織文化差を分析", "finding": "組織文化差を主に実践の差として測定", "limitations": [ "ケース数限定", "特定企業群", "国民文化との混同に注意" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.2307/2393392", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "oreilly-1991", "authors": "O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F.", "year": 1991, "title": "People and Organizational Culture: A Profile Comparison Approach to Assessing Person-Organization Fit", "journal": "Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 487–516", "doi": "10.2307/256404", "type": "measure and field studies", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "従業員・応募者", "sample": "複数標本", "method": "価値プロフィールの適合と態度・離職を分析", "finding": "価値適合が満足・コミットメント等と関連", "limitations": [ "自己報告・選択効果", "同質化や差別へ転用しない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.2307/256404", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "denison-mishra-1995", "authors": "Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. K.", "year": 1995, "title": "Toward a Theory of Organizational Culture and Effectiveness", "journal": "Organization Science, 6(2), 204–223", "doi": "10.1287/orsc.6.2.204", "type": "multimethod field study", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "企業・組織", "sample": "質的事例と定量標本", "method": "関与、一貫性、適応性、使命と有効性を検討", "finding": "文化特性と有効性の関連モデルを提示", "limitations": [ "観察研究", "成果指標・業界差", "文化を操作レバー化しない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.2.204", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "meyerson-martin-1987", "authors": "Meyerson, D., & Martin, J.", "year": 1987, "title": "Cultural Change: An Integration of Three Different Views", "journal": "Journal of Management Studies, 24(6), 623–647", "doi": "10.1111/j.1467-6486.1987.tb00466.x", "type": "conceptual synthesis", "evidence_role": "基礎理論・測定", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "組織文化変化", "sample": "理論文献", "method": "統合・分化・曖昧性の3視点を整理", "finding": "単一共有文化だけでなく下位文化・曖昧性を扱う", "limitations": [ "概念論", "測定・介入効果ではない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1987.tb00466.x", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "hatch-1993", "authors": "Hatch, M. J.", "year": 1993, "title": "The Dynamics of Organizational Culture", "journal": "Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 657–693", "doi": "10.2307/258594", "type": "conceptual model", "evidence_role": "基礎理論・測定", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "組織文化", "sample": "理論文献", "method": "前提・価値・人工物・象徴の動的関係を理論化", "finding": "文化を一方向でなく解釈と象徴化を含む循環として整理", "limitations": [ "概念モデル", "実証検証は別途" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.2307/258594", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "chatman-oreilly-2016", "authors": "Chatman, J. A., & O’Reilly, C. A.", "year": 2016, "title": "Paradigm Lost: Reinvigorating the Study of Organizational Culture", "journal": "Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 199–224", "doi": "10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.004", "type": "integrative review", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "組織文化研究", "sample": "主要研究", "method": "文化研究の定義・測定・成果・今後を整理", "finding": "共有規範と強度、内容、適合等を再整理", "limitations": [ "ナラティブ統合", "介入効果レビューではない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.004", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "schneider-2013", "authors": "Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H.", "year": 2013, "title": "Organizational Climate and Culture", "journal": "Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 361–388", "doi": "10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143809", "type": "annual review", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "組織風土・文化研究", "sample": "主要研究", "method": "文化と風土の概念、形成、結果を統合", "finding": "文化は意味・前提、風土は方針・実践の共有認知を中心に整理", "limitations": [ "ナラティブレビュー", "境界は完全には固定しない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143809", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "hartnell-2011", "authors": "Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., & Kinicki, A.", "year": 2011, "title": "Organizational Culture and Organizational Effectiveness: A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Competing Values Framework", "journal": "Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 677–694", "doi": "10.1037/a0021987", "type": "meta-analysis", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "組織文化研究", "sample": "統合研究群", "method": "文化類型と態度・運用・財務成果を統合", "finding": "文化類型ごとに異なる成果関連を報告", "limitations": [ "観察研究", "類型内異質性", "万能の最良文化ではない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021987", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "schneider-reichers-1983", "authors": "Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E.", "year": 1983, "title": "On the Etiology of Climates", "journal": "Personnel Psychology, 36(1), 19–39", "doi": "10.1111/j.1744-6570.1983.tb00500.x", "type": "conceptual review", "evidence_role": "基礎理論・測定", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "組織風土", "sample": "理論・研究", "method": "風土形成の構造・相互作用・選択等を整理", "finding": "風土は個人回答の単純平均でなく共有経験から形成", "limitations": [ "概念論", "後続の多層研究で発展" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1983.tb00500.x", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "james-2008", "authors": "James, L. R. et al.", "year": 2008, "title": "Organizational and Psychological Climate: A Review of Theory and Research", "journal": "European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(1), 5–32", "doi": "10.1080/13594320701662550", "type": "integrative review", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "心理的・組織風土研究", "sample": "主要研究", "method": "個人の心理的風土と集団の組織風土を整理", "finding": "分析レベル・集約根拠を区別する必要を示す", "limitations": [ "ナラティブレビュー", "尺度・焦点の異質性" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320701662550", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "patterson-2005", "authors": "Patterson, M. G. et al.", "year": 2005, "title": "Validating the Organizational Climate Measure", "journal": "Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 379–408", "doi": "10.1002/job.312", "type": "measure validation", "evidence_role": "基礎理論・測定", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "複数組織の従業員", "sample": "複数組織標本", "method": "競合価値枠組みに基づく風土尺度を検証", "finding": "複数次元の組織風土測定を提示", "limitations": [ "尺度項目・利用条件", "英国中心", "次元を一得点にしない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1002/job.312", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "chan-1998", "authors": "Chan, D.", "year": 1998, "title": "Functional Relations among Constructs in the Same Content Domain at Different Levels of Analysis", "journal": "Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 234–246", "doi": "10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234", "type": "multilevel methodology", "evidence_role": "基礎理論・測定", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "多層組織研究", "sample": "方法論文献", "method": "個人回答を集団概念へ構成する複数モデルを提示", "finding": "平均、合意、分散等の集約論理を明示すべきと示す", "limitations": [ "方法論", "特定風土の効果証明ではない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "schneider-strength-2002", "authors": "Schneider, B., Salvaggio, A. N., & Subirats, M.", "year": 2002, "title": "Climate Strength: A New Direction for Climate Research", "journal": "Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 220–229", "doi": "10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.220", "type": "multilevel field study", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "銀行支店等", "sample": "複数組織単位", "method": "風土平均と成員間合意の強さを分析", "finding": "同じ平均でも合意の強さが結果関係を変え得る", "limitations": [ "特定業界", "観察研究", "強い風土を善としない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.220", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "zohar-1980", "authors": "Zohar, D.", "year": 1980, "title": "Safety Climate in Industrial Organizations", "journal": "Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(1), 96–102", "doi": "10.1037/0021-9010.65.1.96", "type": "measure and field study", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "産業組織", "sample": "複数工場", "method": "安全に関する方針・実践の共有認知を測定", "finding": "安全風土概念を組織単位で提示", "limitations": [ "古典的製造業", "現代サービス・心理社会リスクへ拡張注意" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.65.1.96", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "clarke-2006", "authors": "Clarke, S.", "year": 2006, "title": "The Relationship between Safety Climate and Safety Performance: A Meta-Analytic Review", "journal": "Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(4), 315–327", "doi": "10.1037/1076-8998.11.4.315", "type": "meta-analysis", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "安全風土研究", "sample": "統合研究群", "method": "安全風土と安全遵守・参加・事故等を統合", "finding": "安全風土は安全行動・結果と関連", "limitations": [ "観察研究中心", "尺度・産業差", "事故過少報告" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.11.4.315", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "beus-2010", "authors": "Beus, J. M. et al.", "year": 2010, "title": "Safety Climate and Injuries: An Examination of Theoretical and Empirical Relationships", "journal": "Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 713–727", "doi": "10.1037/a0019164", "type": "meta-analysis", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "安全風土・事故研究", "sample": "統合研究群", "method": "安全風土と傷害の時間・因果関係を統合", "finding": "安全風土と傷害は相互関係を持ち得る", "limitations": [ "観察研究", "事故記録差", "逆因果" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019164", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "christian-2009", "authors": "Christian, M. S. et al.", "year": 2009, "title": "Workplace Safety: A Meta-Analysis of the Roles of Person and Situation Factors", "journal": "Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1103–1127", "doi": "10.1037/a0016172", "type": "meta-analysis", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "職場安全研究", "sample": "統合研究群", "method": "安全知識・動機・風土・行動・事故を統合", "finding": "個人要因と状況要因の双方が安全結果に関係", "limitations": [ "相関研究中心", "個人責任へ還元しない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016172", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "schneider-service-1998", "authors": "Schneider, B., White, S. S., & Paul, M. C.", "year": 1998, "title": "Linking Service Climate and Customer Perceptions of Service Quality", "journal": "Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 150–163", "doi": "10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.150", "type": "multilevel field study", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "銀行支店・顧客", "sample": "支店従業員と顧客", "method": "サービス風土と顧客評価を多層分析", "finding": "従業員のサービス風土認知と顧客品質認知を接続", "limitations": [ "単一業界", "観察研究", "顧客第一で従業員を犠牲にしない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.150", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "hong-2013", "authors": "Hong, Y. et al.", "year": 2013, "title": "Missing Link in the Service Profit Chain: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Antecedents, Consequences, and Moderators of Service Climate", "journal": "Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 237–267", "doi": "10.1037/a0031666", "type": "meta-analysis", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "サービス風土研究", "sample": "統合研究群", "method": "先行要因・従業員・顧客・業績結果を統合", "finding": "サービス風土は複数レベルの結果と関連", "limitations": [ "観察研究中心", "業種・測定差", "顧客ハラスメントを正当化しない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031666", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "nishii-2013", "authors": "Nishii, L. H.", "year": 2013, "title": "The Benefits of Climate for Inclusion for Gender-Diverse Groups", "journal": "Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1754–1774", "doi": "10.5465/amj.2009.0823", "type": "multilevel field study", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "ジェンダー多様な職場集団", "sample": "複数集団", "method": "包摂風土と葛藤・満足・離職等を分析", "finding": "包摂風土が多様性と集団結果の関係を変え得る", "limitations": [ "観察研究", "二元的性別構成中心", "他の交差性に一般化注意" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0823", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "mckay-2007", "authors": "McKay, P. F. et al.", "year": 2007, "title": "Racial Differences in Employee Retention: Are Diversity Climate Perceptions the Key?", "journal": "Personnel Psychology, 60(1), 35–62", "doi": "10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00064.x", "type": "longitudinal field study", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "小売従業員", "sample": "大規模職域標本", "method": "多様性風土と人種別売上・離職を分析", "finding": "多様性風土の認知が群別結果と関係", "limitations": [ "米国人種分類・単一企業", "観察研究", "差別監査を代替しない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00064.x", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "anderson-west-1998", "authors": "Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A.", "year": 1998, "title": "Measuring Climate for Work Group Innovation", "journal": "Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(3), 235–258", "doi": "10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199805)19:3<235::AID-JOB837>3.0.CO;2-C", "type": "measure validation", "evidence_role": "基礎理論・測定", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "作業チーム", "sample": "複数チーム", "method": "チーム革新風土尺度を開発・検証", "finding": "ビジョン、参加安全、課題志向、革新支援等を提示", "limitations": [ "尺度権利・長さ", "革新成果そのものではない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199805)19:3<235::AID-JOB837>3.0.CO;2-C", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "hunter-2007", "authors": "Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., & Mumford, M. D.", "year": 2007, "title": "Climate for Creativity: A Quantitative Review", "journal": "Creativity Research Journal, 19(1), 69–90", "doi": "10.1080/10400410709336883", "type": "meta-analysis", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "創造性風土研究", "sample": "統合研究群", "method": "創造性・革新を支える風土次元を統合", "finding": "支援、資源、挑戦、自由等と創造性の関連を整理", "limitations": [ "観察研究中心", "尺度の異質性", "過重な挑戦を推奨しない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410709336883", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "victor-cullen-1988", "authors": "Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B.", "year": 1988, "title": "The Organizational Bases of Ethical Work Climates", "journal": "Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(1), 101–125", "doi": "10.2307/2392857", "type": "measure and field study", "evidence_role": "基礎理論・測定", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "組織成員", "sample": "複数組織", "method": "倫理的推論基準と分析対象から倫理風土を分類", "finding": "異なる倫理風土類型を提示", "limitations": [ "古典的分類", "倫理性の高低を単純順位化しない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.2307/2392857", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "martin-cullen-2006", "authors": "Martin, K. D., & Cullen, J. B.", "year": 2006, "title": "Continuities and Extensions of Ethical Climate Theory: A Meta-Analytic Review", "journal": "Journal of Business Ethics, 69, 175–194", "doi": "10.1007/s10551-006-9084-7", "type": "meta-analysis", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "倫理風土研究", "sample": "統合研究群", "method": "倫理風土と態度・行動の関連を統合", "finding": "風土類型により満足・コミットメント・非倫理行動等との関連が異なる", "limitations": [ "相関研究中心", "文化・業界差", "倫理をアンケートだけで証明しない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9084-7", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "kish-gephart-2010", "authors": "Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K.", "year": 2010, "title": "Bad Apples, Bad Cases, and Bad Barrels: Meta-Analytic Evidence about Sources of Unethical Decisions at Work", "journal": "Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 1–31", "doi": "10.1037/a0017103", "type": "meta-analysis", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "職場の非倫理的判断研究", "sample": "統合研究群", "method": "個人・問題・組織環境要因を統合", "finding": "非倫理行動は個人だけでなく倫理風土・文化等と関連", "limitations": [ "主に意思決定研究", "自己報告・実験を含む", "個人選別へ使わない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017103", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "kaptein-2008", "authors": "Kaptein, M.", "year": 2008, "title": "Developing and Testing a Measure for the Ethical Culture of Organizations", "journal": "Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(7), 923–947", "doi": "10.1002/job.520", "type": "measure development", "evidence_role": "基礎理論・測定", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "従業員", "sample": "大規模複数標本", "method": "倫理文化の複数美徳を測定・検証", "finding": "明確性、上司・経営の模範、実行可能性、支援、透明性、議論可能性、制裁等を提示", "limitations": [ "自己報告", "尺度権利", "コンプライアンス実効性を単独証明しない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1002/job.520", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "morrison-2011", "authors": "Morrison, E. W., Wheeler-Smith, S. L., & Kamdar, D.", "year": 2011, "title": "Speaking Up in Groups: A Cross-Level Study of Group Voice Climate and Voice", "journal": "Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 183–191", "doi": "10.1037/a0020744", "type": "multilevel field study", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "作業集団", "sample": "複数チーム", "method": "集団発言風土と個人発言を多層分析", "finding": "発言が期待・支持される共有認知が個人発言と関連", "limitations": [ "観察研究", "発言内容・報復を別途評価" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020744", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "frazier-2017", "authors": "Frazier, M. L. et al.", "year": 2017, "title": "Psychological Safety: A Meta-Analytic Review and Extension", "journal": "Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165", "doi": "10.1111/peps.12183", "type": "meta-analysis", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "心理的安全性研究", "sample": "統合研究群", "method": "先行要因・成果・分析レベルを統合", "finding": "心理的安全性は発言・学習・業績等と関連", "limitations": [ "観察研究中心", "安全尺度を文化全体と同一視しない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "baron-2001", "authors": "Baron, J. N., Hannan, M. T., & Burton, M. D.", "year": 2001, "title": "Labor Pains: Change in Organizational Models and Employee Turnover in Young, High-Tech Firms", "journal": "American Journal of Sociology, 106(4), 960–1012", "doi": "10.1086/320296", "type": "longitudinal organization study", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "若いハイテク企業", "sample": "企業パネル", "method": "創業時組織モデル変更と離職を追跡", "finding": "初期組織モデルの変更が離職等と関係することを報告", "limitations": [ "特定地域・時代・業界", "モデルは文化そのものではない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1086/320296", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "giberson-2009", "authors": "Giberson, T. R. et al.", "year": 2009, "title": "Leadership and Organizational Culture: Linking CEO Characteristics to Cultural Values", "journal": "Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 123–137", "doi": "10.1007/s10869-009-9109-1", "type": "multilevel field study", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "組織とCEO", "sample": "複数組織", "method": "CEO特性・価値と文化認知を分析", "finding": "上位リーダーと文化価値の関連を報告", "limitations": [ "観察研究", "CEOだけで文化を決めない", "共通方法差" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9109-1", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "berson-2008", "authors": "Berson, Y., Oreg, S., & Dvir, T.", "year": 2008, "title": "CEO Values, Organizational Culture and Firm Outcomes", "journal": "Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(5), 615–633", "doi": "10.1002/job.499", "type": "multilevel field study", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "組織・CEO", "sample": "複数企業", "method": "CEO価値、文化、成果を多層分析", "finding": "リーダー価値と文化・成果の関連経路を報告", "limitations": [ "観察研究", "因果方向", "リーダー中心主義に注意" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1002/job.499", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "kristof-1996", "authors": "Kristof, A. L.", "year": 1996, "title": "Person-Organization Fit: An Integrative Review", "journal": "Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1–49", "doi": "10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x", "type": "integrative review", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "個人‐組織適合研究", "sample": "主要研究", "method": "補足的・相補的適合、需要‐能力、供給‐価値等を整理", "finding": "カルチャーフィットが複数の異なる適合を含むと整理", "limitations": [ "ナラティブレビュー", "適合の定義・測定差" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "verquer-2003", "authors": "Verquer, M. L., Beehr, T. A., & Wagner, S. H.", "year": 2003, "title": "A Meta-Analysis of Relations between Person-Organization Fit and Work Attitudes", "journal": "Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 473–489", "doi": "10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00036-2", "type": "meta-analysis", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "個人‐組織適合研究", "sample": "統合研究群", "method": "適合と満足・コミットメント・離職意向を統合", "finding": "知覚・客観適合と態度の関連を報告", "limitations": [ "自己報告同時測定が多い", "実離職・業績は限定" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00036-2", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "arthur-2006", "authors": "Arthur, W. et al.", "year": 2006, "title": "The Use of Person-Organization Fit in Employment Decision Making", "journal": "Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 786–801", "doi": "10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.786", "type": "meta-analysis", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "採用・適合研究", "sample": "統合研究群", "method": "適合測定の妥当性と採用基準としての増分を統合", "finding": "適合指標の増分妥当性は限定・測定方法依存", "limitations": [ "採用で主観的同質性を増幅する危険", "法的・公平性監査" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.786", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "oh-2014", "authors": "Oh, I.-S. et al.", "year": 2014, "title": "Fit Happens Globally: A Meta-Analytic Comparison of the Relationships of Person-Environment Fit Dimensions with Work Attitudes and Performance", "journal": "Personnel Psychology, 67(1), 99–152", "doi": "10.1111/peps.12026", "type": "meta-analysis", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "個人‐環境適合研究", "sample": "複数国研究群", "method": "適合次元と態度・業績を国際比較統合", "finding": "適合次元ごとに結果関連が異なる", "limitations": [ "文化・尺度・自己報告差", "因果確定ではない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12026", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "van-vianen-2018", "authors": "Van Vianen, A. E. M.", "year": 2018, "title": "Person–Environment Fit: A Review of Its Basic Tenets", "journal": "Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 75–101", "doi": "10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104702", "type": "annual review", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "個人‐環境適合研究", "sample": "主要研究", "method": "適合の理論、測定、動的過程を整理", "finding": "適合は固定属性でなく時間・相互作用で変わると整理", "limitations": [ "ナラティブレビュー", "介入効果は限定" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104702", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "rivera-2012", "authors": "Rivera, L. A.", "year": 2012, "title": "Hiring as Cultural Matching", "journal": "American Sociological Review, 77(6), 999–1022", "doi": "10.1177/0003122412463213", "type": "qualitative field study", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "専門サービス企業の採用", "sample": "採用担当者・観察・面接", "method": "文化的類似性による採用評価を質的分析", "finding": "採用者との趣味・経験・自己呈示の類似が評価へ入り得る", "limitations": [ "特定高所得業界・米国", "質的研究", "すべての適合評価を否定しない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412463213", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "cable-judge-1997", "authors": "Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A.", "year": 1997, "title": "Interviewers’ Perceptions of Person–Organization Fit and Organizational Selection Decisions", "journal": "Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(4), 546–561", "doi": "10.1037/0021-9010.82.4.546", "type": "selection field study", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "採用面接者・応募者", "sample": "面接標本", "method": "面接者の適合認知と採用判断を分析", "finding": "適合認知が採用推奨と関係し、主観判断が含まれる", "limitations": [ "観察研究", "面接者バイアス", "価値適合と人物類似を分ける" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.4.546", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "howard-grenville-2006", "authors": "Howard-Grenville, J. A.", "year": 2006, "title": "Inside the Black Box: How Organizational Culture and Subcultures Inform Interpretations and Actions on Environmental Issues", "journal": "Organization & Environment, 19(1), 46–73", "doi": "10.1177/1086026605285739", "type": "qualitative field study", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "企業の環境課題対応", "sample": "組織事例", "method": "下位文化が課題解釈・行動へ与える影響を分析", "finding": "同一組織の下位文化が異なる問題理解を生むと報告", "limitations": [ "単一事例中心", "環境課題文脈", "一般化制約" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026605285739", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "golden-1992", "authors": "Golden, K. A.", "year": 1992, "title": "The Individual and Organizational Culture: Strategies for Action in Highly-Ordered Contexts", "journal": "Journal of Management Studies, 29(1), 1–21", "doi": "10.1111/j.1467-6486.1992.tb00649.x", "type": "qualitative field study", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "組織成員", "sample": "組織事例", "method": "強い秩序下の個人行動と文化を分析", "finding": "成員が文化を受動的に受けるだけでなく解釈・行為することを示す", "limitations": [ "事例研究", "文化強度を善としない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1992.tb00649.x", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "weick-quinn-1999", "authors": "Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E.", "year": 1999, "title": "Organizational Change and Development", "journal": "Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361–386", "doi": "10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.361", "type": "annual review", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "組織変化研究", "sample": "主要研究", "method": "エピソード的・継続的変化を整理", "finding": "変化を一度の導入でなく継続的再構成として捉える", "limitations": [ "ナラティブレビュー", "文化変革だけに限定されない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.361", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "ogbonna-harris-1998", "authors": "Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. C.", "year": 1998, "title": "Managing Organizational Culture: Compliance or Genuine Change?", "journal": "British Journal of Management, 9(4), 273–288", "doi": "10.1111/1467-8551.00098", "type": "qualitative field study", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "文化変革を行う組織", "sample": "複数事例", "method": "文化管理の実装と成員反応を分析", "finding": "表面的順応と深い変化を区別する必要を報告", "limitations": [ "事例研究", "管理主導視点", "長期因果限定" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00098", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "harris-ogbonna-2002", "authors": "Harris, L. C., & Ogbonna, E.", "year": 2002, "title": "The Unintended Consequences of Culture Interventions: A Study of Unexpected Outcomes", "journal": "British Journal of Management, 13(1), 31–49", "doi": "10.1111/1467-8551.00221", "type": "qualitative field study", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "文化介入組織", "sample": "事例研究", "method": "文化介入の意図せざる結果を分析", "finding": "皮肉、儀礼的順応、逆効果等の可能性を報告", "limitations": [ "少数事例", "自己報告", "一般化制約" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00221", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "stouten-2018", "authors": "Stouten, J., Rousseau, D. M., & De Cremer, D.", "year": 2018, "title": "Successful Organizational Change: Integrating the Management Practice and Scholarly Literatures", "journal": "Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), 752–788", "doi": "10.5465/annals.2016.0095", "type": "integrative review", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "組織変革", "sample": "研究・実務文献", "method": "変革の段階・実践・根拠を統合", "finding": "問題診断、参加、実装、評価等の証拠に沿う過程を整理", "limitations": [ "ナラティブ統合", "文化変革に限定されない", "万能手順ではない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0095", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "rafferty-2013", "authors": "Rafferty, A. E., Jimmieson, N. L., & Armenakis, A. A.", "year": 2013, "title": "Change Readiness: A Multilevel Review", "journal": "Journal of Management, 39(1), 110–135", "doi": "10.1177/0149206312457417", "type": "multilevel review", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "変革準備性研究", "sample": "主要研究", "method": "個人・集団の変革準備性を多層整理", "finding": "必要性、適切性、能力、支援、便益等を区別", "limitations": [ "ナラティブレビュー", "準備性を服従性にしない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312457417", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "taras-2010", "authors": "Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P.", "year": 2010, "title": "Examining the Impact of Culture’s Consequences: A Three-Decade, Multilevel, Meta-Analytic Review of Hofstede’s Cultural Value Dimensions", "journal": "Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 405–439", "doi": "10.1037/a0018938", "type": "meta-analysis", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "国民文化価値研究", "sample": "統合研究群", "method": "Hofstede次元と個人・チーム・組織結果を多層統合", "finding": "国民文化値の関連はレベル・結果・文脈で変わる", "limitations": [ "国平均を個人へ当てはめない", "時代・国内差", "組織文化と別" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018938", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "gelfand-2011", "authors": "Gelfand, M. J. et al.", "year": 2011, "title": "Differences between Tight and Loose Cultures: A 33-Nation Study", "journal": "Science, 332(6033), 1100–1104", "doi": "10.1126/science.1197754", "type": "cross-national study", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "33か国の住民", "sample": "国際大規模標本", "method": "規範の強さと逸脱許容を比較", "finding": "文化的タイトネス・ルースネスの国差と関連要因を報告", "limitations": [ "国レベル平均", "個人・組織へ直結しない", "規範強度を善悪化しない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1197754", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "ashforth-mael-1989", "authors": "Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F.", "year": 1989, "title": "Social Identity Theory and the Organization", "journal": "Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39", "doi": "10.2307/258189", "type": "conceptual review", "evidence_role": "基礎理論・測定", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "組織同一視", "sample": "理論文献", "method": "社会的同一視を組織行動へ導入", "finding": "所属が自己概念・内外集団行動へ関係すると整理", "limitations": [ "概念論", "同一視を忠誠義務にしない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.2307/258189", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "pratt-2000", "authors": "Pratt, M. G.", "year": 2000, "title": "The Good, the Bad, and the Ambivalent: Managing Identification among Amway Distributors", "journal": "Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 456–493", "doi": "10.2307/2667106", "type": "qualitative field study", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "販売組織成員", "sample": "縦断的質的事例", "method": "組織同一視を形成する意味づけを分析", "finding": "同一視管理の複数様式と両義性を報告", "limitations": [ "単一特殊組織", "質的研究", "操作的同一視に注意" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.2307/2667106", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "who-2022", "authors": "World Health Organization", "year": 2022, "title": "WHO Guidelines on Mental Health at Work", "journal": "World Health Organization", "url": "https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240053052", "type": "evidence-based guideline", "evidence_role": "公式指針・制度", "status": "official", "population": "労働者・組織", "sample": "系統的レビューに基づく指針", "method": "組織介入、管理職・労働者研修、個人支援、復職等を勧告", "finding": "文化スローガンでなく心理社会的リスクへの組織介入を重視", "limitations": [ "各勧告の確実性差", "医療的個別助言ではない" ], "source_url": "https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240053052", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "iso-45003", "authors": "International Organization for Standardization", "year": 2021, "title": "ISO 45003:2021 Psychological Health and Safety at Work", "journal": "ISO", "url": "https://www.iso.org/standard/64283.html", "type": "international standard guidance", "evidence_role": "公式指針・制度", "status": "official", "population": "あらゆる規模・業種の組織", "sample": "国際規格", "method": "心理社会的リスクを労働安全衛生マネジメントで管理する指針", "finding": "継続的改善と労働者参加を含むシステム対応を提示", "limitations": [ "規格本文は著作権・有料", "認証だけで有効性を証明しない", "2026年時点で体系的レビュー中" ], "source_url": "https://www.iso.org/standard/64283.html", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "ilo-c155", "authors": "International Labour Organization", "year": 1981, "title": "Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155)", "journal": "ILO NORMLEX", "url": "https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C155", "type": "international labour convention", "evidence_role": "公式指針・制度", "status": "official", "population": "批准国の労働安全衛生", "sample": "規範文書", "method": "安全衛生の政策・使用者責任・労働者参加等を規定", "finding": "安全文化を個人意識だけへ還元しない制度基盤", "limitations": [ "批准・国内実施を確認" ], "source_url": "https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C155", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "ilo-c187", "authors": "International Labour Organization", "year": 2006, "title": "Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 2006 (No. 187)", "journal": "ILO NORMLEX", "url": "https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C187", "type": "international labour convention", "evidence_role": "公式指針・制度", "status": "official", "population": "批准国の安全衛生制度", "sample": "規範文書", "method": "予防的安全衛生文化を含む継続的改善枠組みを規定", "finding": "安全文化を国・組織の制度と参加へ接続", "limitations": [ "批准・国内実施を確認", "標語で代替しない" ], "source_url": "https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C187", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "ilo-c190", "authors": "International Labour Organization", "year": 2019, "title": "Violence and Harassment Convention, 2019 (No. 190)", "journal": "ILO NORMLEX", "url": "https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C190", "type": "international labour convention", "evidence_role": "公式指針・制度", "status": "official", "population": "批准国の仕事の世界", "sample": "規範文書", "method": "暴力・ハラスメントのない仕事の世界への権利と予防・救済を規定", "finding": "文化を理由に暴力・ハラスメントを容認しない最低線", "limitations": [ "批准・国内実施を確認" ], "source_url": "https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C190", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "doj-compliance-2024", "authors": "U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division", "year": 2024, "title": "Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs", "journal": "U.S. Department of Justice", "url": "https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-fraud/page/file/937501/dl", "type": "official evaluation guidance", "evidence_role": "公式指針・制度", "status": "official", "population": "企業コンプライアンス評価", "sample": "検察向け指針", "method": "設計、誠実な適用・資源、実務上の機能という評価観点を提示", "finding": "方針の存在より、インセンティブ、資源、データ、実効性を問う", "limitations": [ "米国刑事執行文脈", "一般的な文化評価規格ではない", "2024年9月版" ], "source_url": "https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-fraud/page/file/937501/dl", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "japan-whistleblower", "authors": "日本国", "year": 2004, "title": "公益通報者保護法（平成十六年法律第百二十二号）", "journal": "e-Gov法令検索", "url": "https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/document?lawid=416AC0000000122", "type": "Japanese statute", "evidence_role": "公式指針・制度", "status": "official", "population": "日本の公益通報者・事業者等", "sample": "法令", "method": "通報者保護と事業者の体制整備等を規定", "finding": "「風通しの良い文化」という自己評価で通報体制を代替しない基盤", "limitations": [ "対象・要件・現行指針を確認" ], "source_url": "https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/document?lawid=416AC0000000122", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "mhlw-harassment", "authors": "厚生労働省", "year": 2026, "title": "職場におけるハラスメントの防止のために", "journal": "厚生労働省", "url": "https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/seisakunitsuite/bunya/koyou_roudou/koyoukintou/seisaku06/index.html", "type": "official guidance portal", "evidence_role": "公式指針・制度", "status": "official", "population": "日本の事業主・労働者", "sample": "行政案内・指針", "method": "各種ハラスメント防止措置・相談等を案内", "finding": "「うちの文化」でハラスメントを正当化しない国内制度入口", "limitations": [ "指針改正・個別該当性を確認" ], "source_url": "https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/seisakunitsuite/bunya/koyou_roudou/koyoukintou/seisaku06/index.html", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" } ] }